Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 38 (0.46 seconds)The Indian Penal Code, 1860
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 313 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Shahid Ahmed vs State (Nct Of Delhi) on 26 April, 2012
At the cost of repetition, it is settled law that if there is no
crossÂexamination of a prosecution witness in respect of a statement of
fact, it will only show the admission of that fact (Ref.: Wahid Ahmed
and Ors. Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) 2011 VII AD (DELHI) 276).
Bachan Singh Etc. Etc vs State Of Punjab Etc. Etc on 16 August, 1982
District & Sessions Judge 2014 CRI.L.J.
1422 (Andhra Pradesh High Court); 'Lalhmingchhuanga Vs. State of
Mizoram' 2010(3) Crimes 850 (Gau); 'Kailash Laxman Vs. State of
Maharashtra' 2010 CRI LJ 3255; 'Anrej Singh Vs. State of Punjab' 2007
(1) CC Cases (HC) 475; 'Ramadhin Vs. State of M.P.'
Hari Chand & Anr vs State Of Delhi on 12 February, 1996
2010 (2) Crimes
666 (Chhatt); 'Hari Chand Vs. State (Delhi)' 1999 (3) CC Cases HC 248;
'Banarsi Das Vs. Teeku Dutta & Anr.' IV 2005 SLT 136 (SC);
'Premjibhai Bachubhai Khasiya Vs. State of Gujarat' 2009 CRI.L.J. 2888
and 'Saroti Devi & Ors. Vs. State of H.P.' 2000 (2) CC Cases HC 182.
Ranjit Hazarika vs State Of Assam on 28 February, 1996
At the cost of repetition, in case, 'Ranjit Hazarika Vs.
State of Assam', (1998) 8 SCC 635, the Hon'ble Supreme Court
observed that nonÂrupture of hymen or absence of injury on victim's
private parts does not belie the testimony of the prosecutrix.
Shri Banarsi Dass vs Mrs. Teeku Dutta And Anr on 27 April, 2005
2010 (2) Crimes
666 (Chhatt); 'Hari Chand Vs. State (Delhi)' 1999 (3) CC Cases HC 248;
'Banarsi Das Vs. Teeku Dutta & Anr.' IV 2005 SLT 136 (SC);
'Premjibhai Bachubhai Khasiya Vs. State of Gujarat' 2009 CRI.L.J. 2888
and 'Saroti Devi & Ors. Vs. State of H.P.' 2000 (2) CC Cases HC 182.